|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 04:23 AM EDT |
| Nahh, they could lisence it for a negative amount. That would work too. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 04:25 AM EDT |
Ah well, probably the US PTO interprets that as 'not yet
patented'; Surely anything not patented at some moment in
history *must* -at this moment- be novel and non-obvious.
But please explain how could a patent on this kind of
humbug have any other purpose than anti-competitive use.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Security - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 02:05 PM EDT
- Security - Authored by: albert on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 04:43 AM EDT |
How much are people going to want to license this patent? Apple iPhone can't be
guatanteed to have your camera, phone network (already seem to have tried this
with the case and aerial), etc working, whereas our Sam's gun phone does all
these...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 05:32 AM EDT |
The poster asks who would knowingly buy a car that can be remotely
disabled. Answer :Any one who buys on star they advertise this
capability![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 05:35 AM EDT |
Add to this, I don't believe it's legal to sell a phone that can't dial 999
UNDER ANY circumstances.
If a phone has battery, and there is a tower within range, 999 will work.
Doesn't matter if it's not your network. Doesn't matter if it's got no SIM. If
the phone has signal, it will send and the tower will respond to 999.
When you used to be able to buy "phone locks" they had to have the
"9" key unblocked so the user could press that, even if they couldn't
press anything else.
Try pressing the 9 key on a phone with the keypad locked. It'll work.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: squib on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 06:10 AM EDT |
| Looks like a contender for being declared a state secret, since this
technology's "dual-use" could so easily be miss used.
UK keeps three times as many patents secret as the
US
Just sending a few emails to the right people might be easier than
challenging the patent directly.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: complex_number on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:24 AM EDT |
Has apple announced that they will implement the features detailed in the
Patent?
If not then like the speculation over the next iPhone specs, it is just that
speculation.
I forsee that big media may well try to get something like this enrforced for
inside Movie Theatres.
The implementation may well have to allow 911/999/etc calls otherwise the
lawsuits that start flying as soon as someone gets a minor burn on their little
finger because the can't call 911/999 will make all previous class actions seem
puny in contrast.
Can it be used for good purposes? Yes. Despite plenty of notices many commuters
ingore the signs saying 'quiet carriage' and spend the whole journey hunched
over their mobile device doing whatever... A quiet carriage should be just that.
No electronic media operating at all. On the train last sunday evening someone
was describing if fine detail the Paralympic event they had just been to. for 40
minutes we all had to endure this commentary. Then just as the woman was getting
off the train she ended the call by saying 'see you in 10 minutes'. Pah.
{I'd been to the same event and what she was describing was nothing like what
happened. I have the photographic evidence to prove it}
Back on topic.
I really think we should worry when we see (if ever) details of how this would
be implemented in practice.
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- But... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:34 AM EDT
- But... - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 11:39 AM EDT
- But... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 12:35 PM EDT
- But... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT
- Quiet carriages - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 06:15 PM EDT
- But... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:49 AM EDT |
How did this get past the patent office when you can already do that using an
app on Android. Or did it get past because of the central control aspect? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:51 AM EDT |
A clear violation of the Computer Misuse Act, and probably the Data Protection
Act too. They will hopefully not be able to get a patent for this in the UK,
because it is purely software, but I wonder if the act of trying to patent
something which can only be used for criminal purposes is itself criminal?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Telecoms laws too - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 12:52 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:52 AM EDT |
| n/t [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:58 AM EDT |
at least as far as the USPTO is concerned. Rr President Obama, you can do
something about the patent problem by making an example of this patent NOW!
America Invents act, indeed!
Me, I'm looking for project support to begin making an operating system with the
primary goal of ensuring that it is possible to OWN all of the functions on a
computing device. Main trouble is my day job is very much in the way.
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kuroshima on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 08:40 AM EDT |
I haven't read the patenthere what is the filling date?
There have been Android apps that disable wifi/bluetooh
uusing triggers such as cell phone towers, wifi signal, etc
for a while. Tasker and Locale are the most famous ones, but
there are others. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 08:47 AM EDT |
I don't think this should be any more legal than the cell phone jammers
available from various Chinese electronics distributors.
I also think this is pretty obvious solution to a problem and is not worthy of a
patent anyway.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT |
I am a radio engineer. I looked into jamming cell phones in select settings,
like movie theaters, at one time. I do not remember the specifics but as I
recall, it is illegal to block cell phones because people rely on them for
safety. The first time someone dies because Apple disabled their phone Apple is
going to loose big time in the courts.
Logically this will extend to any function of the phone which might have made a
difference. We may think that a camera is not important but when it become a
matter of obstructing justice because it was disabled? This is a legal
quagmire. Public safety and justice are pitted against special interest. Maybe
Apple thinks it is big enough to take the heat but the world is bigger than
Apple.
As for patenting, you want to patent the mechanism that does this, OK. But
patent the idea of selective blocking? Not when I'm on the jury. I don't protect
look and feel beyond product recognition. Your way of doing it maybe but the
idea of it? Forget it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT |
Ummmm...
Unless I'm seriously mistaken, deliberately interfering with telecommunications
services is a violation of federal law. Radio communications, including cell
phones are operated under federal law.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 11:23 AM EDT |
This brings to mind something more sinister. Quite often there are protest
crowds. In Toronto, a couple of years ago, we had the G20 meeting. There were
lots of protests, including some violent, However, the police were also
involved in a blatant and illegal violation of civil rights. There were many
photos and videos of violent protesters and police violating rights. Charges
against both groups happened because there were a lot of pictures and videos.
What would have happened if the police were able to interfere with people taking
pictures and videos with their phones? Incidentally, police have been known to
delete photos and videos from confiscated cameras. One feature that my phone
has is to have pictures immediately uploaded to my Google account, protecting
the photos from any such deletion. If the police could shut down cell phones,
even that protection is lost.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
If it's patented and Apple enforces it to prevent the very uses PJ rails
against, then I don't see it as bad. Well, at least not any worse than any
other software patent.
Besides, if they had published the details without patenting it, then anyone
could implement it.
The proper response here is not to attack the patent specifically for what it
covers, but to get the general public to insist on making such activities - and
other communications-disrupting activities - generally illegal.
I say "generally illegal" because there are places you DO want to
allow such restrictions. For example, as a society we may WANT to allow
well-marked/well-signed movie theaters to block non-emergency phone calls during
a movie, and we may recognize that the government SHOULD be allowed to interfere
with communications during declared disasters. Or maybe we, as a society, value
freedom to communicate more than an uninterrupted movie and maybe we insist upon
it ESPECIALLY during declared emergencies.
But as for the patent: To the extent that a software-only implementation is
feasible, it's no more morally valid than any other "software patent."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
As Apple does not license its super valuable technology, the best way to
make sure you do not accidentally buy a device that implements this
technology is to not buy an iPhone.
As Microsoft may have a license due to a cross-licensing deal, better
avoid Windows phones as well.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: albert on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 03:15 PM EDT |
Does anyone have any idea why Apple would want this patent?
Looking at it from Apples point of view (which is the ONLY way they view the
world), I can see why they would want total control of your phone.
The fact is that there are no valid reasons for controlling an individuals
phone. I'm not going to respond to any of the examples given. I've read 'em, and
they're not convincing.
P.S. Of course, if you wanted to incorporate such features, what would be a
better way of 'announcing' it?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 04:30 PM EDT |
> "chang[e] one or more functional or operational aspects of a
> wireless device [...] upon the occurrence of a certain event."
OK, they give examples which makes it look like a selective operation,
not a blanket jammer. There's a link to USPTO, but I find it easier
to read from Google Patents. Whoa,
> A description for this result is not available because of this site's
robots.txt
My tinfoil hat is suggesting the fight has moved out of the courtroom...
or is USPTO just getting tetchy at all the recent criticism?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
There was a great clucking noise and flurry of feathers when the
application for this was announced. Here we have rinse and repeat.
Has anybody screaming here read the Patent???
It's not actually specified in the patent, but it looks like this would
apply to a specific class of devices. It is not, in the description
of the patent a blanket jammer. Everybody knows that's dangerous
where it's not illegal. The patent describes controlling specific
functions on the target device, like turning off your ringtone,
sleeping the display, blocking credit card transactions, etc.
It can be done over WiFi if out of cell tower range. It doesn't
say (that I could see) how the thing will work on phones
that have been put into airplane mode to disbale all wireless
functions but still leave the camera working and bright
noisy games going. I suspect Apple wouldn't want to
infringe anyone else's patents by using this device to
remotely control phones made by other makers.
Apple have got a patent to remotely control iPhones.
News at eleven.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
